Nannu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14938 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14877/2022

Nannu Ram S/o Mengji Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Khtela, Tehsil Sagot, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay assistant to Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

19/12/2022

1. Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

- State submits that the writ petition involving identical

controversy has been dismissed by Jaipur Bench of this Court vide

its order dated 05.07.2022 rendered in case of Gautam Chand Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.14450/2017.

2. Mr. Pawan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in

a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

(2 of 2) [CW-14877/2022]

3. In case of Gautam Chand (supra), Jaipur Bench of this Court

has observed thus:

13. In the judgment passed by the Division Bench, the validity of the notification dated 29.01.2013 has already been upheld and in none of the judgments cited by the petitioner the experience certificate for the post of ASHA Supervisor has been considered forgiving them appointment. The persons considered were either working on the post mentioned in the advertisement or in other schemes or they were directly appointed by the Gram Panchayats whereas the present matter relates to working on the post of ASHA Supervisor who was appointed by the Medical and Health Department.

14.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15.This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, admittedly the petitioner has not worked on the post which has been mentioned in the advertisement for awarding the bonus marks based on the experience certificate;secondly, in none of the judgments cited by the petitioner before this Court, the post of ASHA Supervisor was considered by the Courts for awarding the bonus marks; thirdly, the petitioner cannot claim negative equality as there is no scope of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,fourthly, Learned AAG has informed that the appointment wrongly given to the persons considering the experience on the post of ASHA Supervisor have already been cancelled; therefore, in the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Following the decision aforesaid in the case of Gautam Chand

(supra), the present writ petition also stands dismissed.

5. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 105-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)